If you go on a Bitcoin fork, irrespective which scammer proposes it, you will lose your Bitcoins.
Some random scammeri, pretending great import and high office in Bitcoin like all the scammers coming before himii (all of which the hostile eye of the mainstream media, as well as the dim, unseeing eye of the mass "follower" presented as actually important, for a brief time, back in the day - and generally for pay) is going to create a "Bitcoin killer".
Unlike the MtGox coins, Aurora coins, Etherium coins, Ripple coins, Paycoins and whatever other scammy "better than Bitcoin", "Bitcoin replacement" etc peddled to dateiii, the current scammer is brasher in his attempt (as scammers are wont to be, they call this "being innovative" on their dedicated scammer forums), and he actually claims to be seriously involved in Bitcoin development, at the behest of a fake "Bitcoin Foundation". These claims are both false, on the strength of the historical record, and both are squarely rejected by the actual Bitcoin Foundation.
What's left is the nude reality of the matter : if you, either misguided by some scammer's malice, or simply through ignorance, actually modify your Bitcoin client to accept the nonconformant transactions, the result will be that any Bitcoin you hold will be slowly (or perhaps not so slowly, depending on your use habits) replaced by worthless scam-Bitcoins, that will not be accepted by the main players in Bitcoin anymore than they'd accept something you've drawn yourself.
The fate of this fork will be exactly the fate of all attempted forks to date : the savvy Bitcoin holders will sell their fake-Bitcoins on the fake network, while double-spending (and thus invalidating) their sale on the actual network, thereby keeping their actual Bitcoin safe.iv The proceeds of this "victimless"v crime will be used to purchase more legitimate Bitcoins on the legitimate network, thus draining away value from the holders of Bitcoin fakes, into the pockets of the legitimate Bitcoin holders. Which of these two do you wish to be... well... now that you consider the matter, it's pretty obvious, right ? Certainly, not all will consider the matter, but if your morals are in their right place you will at least let them know, if you can get to them.
To make it perfectly clear : in no case will MPEx accept this fake Bitcoin, as it's not accepted any other fake Bitcoin to date, and for the exact reasons. Moreover, my budget to sink this scam exceeds the budget of everyone involved on the supporting side.vi That is all.
———- One Gavin Andresen, known principally for his costumed clown services, where he goes to various conferences dressed as this or that for the amusement of the participants. [↩]
- Trendon Shavers thought he was very important, Mark Karpeles thought he was very important, Max Keiser thought he was very important, Andreas Antonopoulous thought he was very important before his untimely death, Vitalik Buterin thinks he is very important, Josh Garza thinks he is very important, the list is endless. [↩]
- That all miserably failed, needless to say, to a chorus of lulzy stuff like
[↩] - The reverse is not possible, by the way : this scammer's fork is, as designed, forced to accept transactions on the legitimate Bitcoin network, but the legitimate network could never accept transactions based on movements on the fork. [↩]
- In the sense that its only victims are the gullible idiots empowering a scammer, something you're never ever supposed to do, by the way. Note that this is not the first time when "everyone" supported a scammer, and when "the consensus" seemed to be that nonsense is now quite sensible. This did exactly nothing to alleviate the 100% loss of those involved - whose voices you do not hear precisely because that is the fate of the gullible, the scammer following crowd. [↩]
- If you're curious, just do a count. [↩]
Saturday, 10 January 2015
thats why i'm all in Monero.
Saturday, 10 January 2015
It's not clear that thing's mature enough to be all into, except for entities so small it makes really no difference what they're all into.
Sunday, 11 January 2015
big things have small beginnings
Sunday, 11 January 2015
No argument there.
Monday, 12 January 2015
Just curious, what's your stance on sidechains and Blockstream? Google search on trilema.com shows no mentions.
I gotta say, the interview with Gregory Maxwell ("Gregory Maxwell: How I Went From Bitcoin Skeptic to Core Developer" on CoinDesk) sends outright creepy vibes.
Monday, 12 January 2015
I don't have a stance either way, so far. If that substantially changes I'll definitely say.
Tuesday, 13 January 2015
even though i have no stakes on btc anymore, i think you are an important balancing force, there is just too much smokes and mirrors and the inner circle of the mainstream btc cult has too much influence on public perception.
Tuesday, 13 January 2015
Well, "public perception" is principally an epiphenomenon of intellectual maturation. Kid opens eyes into the world, thinks he's the most important thing, then a little older thinks his daddy is the end all-be all Superman, then a little older still recognises a pointless drunk for a pointless drunk and moves on... it's a journey.
So with the public in question, first they think they have a way to "fix" Bitcoin, then they think Gavin's actually intelligent / has something meaningful to say (I don't mean code monkeying - nobody takes advice on how to organise his life from the car mechanic on the strength of "well he fixed my car..."), then they start to actually let go of themselves, and of the fear of losing themselves, and by degree and proportionally with that they also start groking wtf Bitcoin is and does and so on.
Tuesday, 13 January 2015
i image you are not advertising your website but it took me over a year to read your point of view, to think the outermost part of the community, that is the most accessible, is ignoring 'controversial' sides for the mainstream tells a lot about the current state of bitcoin.
Tuesday, 13 January 2015
Well, more like you hit a bad year. Previously I was paying for PR to knock sense into noobs / beat scammers across the head on bitcointalk, but eventually I judged it a waste of resources.
Anyway, Trilema is widely read, but obviously demographics play a large role. For one thing there's a huge market for confirmative bias, on all topics (which is how sites like social media this or that even survive - yet putting stock in that is like believing the common fork is a sort of Heidegger because hey, people hold forks in their hands a lot more than they hold Being&Time). For another thing it's really not everyone's job to understand in arbitrary detail everything that's going on, nor is such even feasible. The bar for even comprehending what's being said here is far above what qualifies one for postdoctoral studies, and so you can't say Trilema is either intended or comfortable for a large majority of people.
Tuesday, 13 January 2015
Yeah very good points, I see what you are saying.
Monday, 29 June 2015
You clearly eager for a huge pump in Bitcoin to keep it capped at 1MB . It's a direct interest for sure.
Monday, 29 June 2015
Who are you and what makes you think you've got a clue ?
Saturday, 23 May 2020
I saw this post on google and checked out a small number of of your early posts. Keep up the great work!